In re Bella H. CA2/5

Filed 10/12/22 In re Bella H. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re BELLA H., a Person B320156 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP07122A) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Y.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Judge Pro Tempore. Conditionally affirmed and remanded. Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Children’s Law Center 3 and Nancy Sarinana for Minor Bella H. ——————————

Y.H. (mother) appeals from the April 27, 2022 order terminating her parental rights over her child Bella H. (minor) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends that the termination order should be reversed and remanded for compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, counsel for mother, minor, and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a joint application and stipulation for a conditional affirmance and remand to the juvenile court for compliance with ICWA and the issuance of an immediate remittitur. The parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Charles W. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 483, 489.) During the course of the proceedings, the Department was in contact with extended maternal family members, including maternal grandfather, a maternal uncle, and a maternal great-aunt. Maternal grandfather and a maternal uncle were present at the initial detention hearing as well. Apart from a report that the